In Re the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supreme Court of India In Re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, The ... vs The Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 on 23 May, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 332, 1951 SCR 747 Author: H J Kania Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K. & Das, S.R. & Bose, Vivian PETITIONER: In re THE DELHI LAWS ACT, 1912,THE AJMER-MERWARA (EXTENSION Vs. RESPONDENT: THE PART C STATES (LAWS) ACT, 1950. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/05/1951 BENCH: KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ) BENCH: KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ) FAZAL ALI, SAIYID SASTRI, M. PATANJALI MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BOSE, VIVIAN MUKHERJEA, B.K. CITATION: 1951 AIR 332 1951 SCR 747 CITATOR INFO : R 1952 SC 75 (29) RF 1952 SC 123 (9,49) D 1952 SC 252 (64,110) R 1953 SC 252 (27) R 1954 SC 465 (9) RF 1954 SC 569 (17) R 1957 SC 414 (13) RF 1957 SC 510 (9,11) R 1958 SC 468 (25) R 1958 SC 682 (11) R 1958 SC 909 (7) R 1958 SC 956 (4) R 1959 SC 512 (7) E&F 1959 SC 749 (28) E 1960 SC 833 (8) RF 1961 SC 4 (15) R 1961 SC 954 (23) RF 1961 SC1381 (4) RF 1961 SC1519 (4) RF 1962 SC 981 (5,6,12,13) F 1964 SC 381 (38) R 1965 SC 745 (17,156,178) R 1965 SC 845 (30,55) R 1965 SC1107 (22,79,80) MV 1966 SC 693 (28) D 1966 SC1788 (44,45) RF 1967 SC 212 (26) RF 1967 SC1048 (20) R 1967 SC1480 (3,4,9,19) RF 1968 SC1232 (13,15,49,50,52,75) RF 1969 SC 549 (2) RF 1971 SC 454 (6) RF 1973 SC1461 (227,450,566,1874,1890) D 1974 SC 669 (12) R 1974 SC1660 (17,28,48,55) R 1975 SC1549 (34,35) RF 1975 SC2299 (46,685) D 1976 SC 714 (38,41,45,48,51,57,58,62,64,69 RF 1979 SC1475 (18) R 1980 SC 650 (5) RF 1980 SC 882 (15) C 1982 SC 710 (51) R 1982 SC1126 (9) R 1984 SC1130 (29) R 1990 SC 560 (3,12,13,14,17,18,20,21,22,23, RF 1992 SC 522 (21) ACT: Delhi Laws Act , 1912, s. 7--Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, s. 2--Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950--Laws giving power to Government to extend to Delhi and Ajmer- Merwara with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit any law in force in any other part of India--Law empowering Government to extend to Part C States any law in force in a Part A State and to repeal existing laws --Valid- ity--Rule against delegation of legislative powers--Scope and basis of the rule--Applicability to India--Difference between delegation of legislative power and conditional legislation--Powers of Indian Legislature under the Indian Councils Act , 1861, the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Indian Constitution, 1950. HEADNOTE: Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, provided that "The Provincial Government may by notification in the official gazette extend, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, to the Province of Delhi, or any part there- of, any enactment which is in force in any part of British India at the date of such notification". Section 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, provided that "The Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, extend to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enact- ment which is in force in any other Province at the date of such notification. Section 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, provided that "The Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette extend to any Part C State ........ or to any part of such State, with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enact- ment which is in force in a Part A State at the date of the notification and provision may be made in any enactment so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding law .... which is for the time being applicable to that Part C State. As a result of a decision of the Federal Court, doubts were entertained with regard to the validity of laws delegating legislative powers to the executive Government and the President of India made a reference to the Supreme Court under Art. 143 (1) of the Constitution for considering the question whether the above-mentioned sec- tions or any provisions thereof were to any extent, and if so to what extent 748 and in what particulars, ultra vires the legislatures that respectively passed these laws, and for reporting to him the opinion of the Court thereon: Held, (1)per FAzL ALl, PATANJALI SASTRI, MUKHERJEA, DAS and Bose JJ., (KANIA C.J., and MAHAJAN J., dissenting).- Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, and s. 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, are wholly intra vires. KANIA C.J.-- Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, and s. 2 of the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, are ultra vires to the extent power is given to the Government to extend Acts other than Acts of the Central Legislature to the Provinces of Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara respectively inasmuch as to that extent the Central Legisla- ture has abdicated its functions and delegated them to the executive government. MAHAJAN J.--The above said sections are ultra vires in the following particulars: (i) inasmuch as they permit the executive to apply to Delhi and Ajmer- Merwara, laws enacted by legislatures not competent to make laws for those territories and which these legislatures may make within their own legislative field, and (ii) inasmuch as they clothe the executive with co-extensive legislative authority in the matter of modification of laws made by legislative bodies in India. (2) Per FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MUKHERJEA, DAS and BOSE JJ.--The first portion of s. 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, ;950, which empowers the Central Government to extend to any Part C State or to any part of such State with such modifications and restrictions as it thinks fit any enactment which is in force in a Part A State, is intra vires. Per KANIA C.J., MAHAJAN, MUKHERJEA and Boss JJ.--The latter portion of the said section which empowers the Cen- tral Government to make provision in any enactment extended to a Part C State, for repeal or amendment of any law (other than a Central Act ) which is for the time being applicable to that Part C State, is ultra vires. Per FAzL ALI, PATAN- JALI SASTRI and DAS JJ.--The latter portion of s. 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, is also intra vires. KANIA C.J.--To the extent that s. 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, empowers the Central Government to extend laws passed by any Legislature of a Part A Slate to a Part C State it is ultra vires. MAHAJAN J.--Section 2 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, is ultra vires in so far as it empowers the Central Government (i) to extend to a Part C State laws passed by a legislature which is not competent to make laws for that Part C State and (ii) to make modifications of laws made by the legislatures of India and (iii) to repeal or amend laws already applicable to that Part C State. 749 KANIA C.J.--(i) The essentials of a legislative function are the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct and these essentials are the characteristics of a legislature by itself. Those essentials arc preserved when the legislature specifies the basic conclusions of fact upon the ascertainment of which from relevant data by a designated administrative agency it ordains that its statutory command is to be effective. The legislature having thus made its laws, every detail for working it out and for carrying the enactment into operation and effect may be done by the legislature or may be left to another subordinate agency or to some executive officer. While this is also sometimes described as delegation of legislative powers, in essence it is different from delega- tion of legislative power as this does not involve the delegation of the power to determine the legislative policy and formulation of the same as a rule of conduct. While the so called delegation which empowers the making of rules and regulations has been recognised as ancillary to legislative power, the Indian Legislature had no power prior to 1935 to delegate legislative power in its true sense. Apart from the sovereign character of the British Parliament whose powers are absolute and unlimited, a general power in the legislature to delegate legislative powers is not recognised in any state. The powers of the Indian Legislature under the Constitution Act s of 1935 and 1950 are not different in this respect. (ii)An "abdication" of its powers by a legis- lature need not necessarily amount to complete effacement of itself. It may be partial. If full powers to do everything that the legislature can do are conferred on a subordinate authority, although the legislature retains the power to control the action of the subordinate authority by recalling such power or repealing the Acts passed by the subordinate authority, there is an abdication or effacement of the legislature conferring such power.